[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] GFS performance.



This brings up an interesting question for me....We can 6 machines that host a bunch of virtual machines. I'd like to put the virtual machines on a shared SAN disk. If one of the physical machines goes down, another one will take over and host a virtual machine.

Does it make sense to use GFS to manage the SAN then? IF the 4x slowdown is there, then this may not be the way to go.

Jeff Sturm wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Vikash Khatuwala
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:23 AM
To: linux-cluster redhat com
Subject: [Linux-cluster] GFS performance.

OS : CentOS 5.2
FS : GFS

Can you easily install CentOS 5.3 and GFS2?  GFS2 claims to have some
performance improvements over GFS1.

Now I need to make a decision to go with GFS or not, clearly at 4 times less performance we cannot afford it, also it doesn't sound right so would like to find out whats wrong.

Be careful with benchmarks, as they often do not give you a good
indication of real-world performance.

Are you more concerned with latency or throughput?  Any single read will
almost certainly take longer to complete over GFS than EXT3.  There's
simply more overhead involved with any cluster filesystem.  However,
that's not to say you're limited as to how many reads you can execute in
parallel.  So the overall number of reads you can perform in a given
time interval may not be 4x at all (are you running a parallel
benchmark?)

Jeff


--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]